• A clean revised manuscript in editable .docx format.
• A point-by-point response covering every editorial and reviewer comment.
• A marked version identifying changes, where requested. Check tracked changes and document properties for identifying information.
• Updated supplementary files or declarations affected by the revision, where applicable.

Upload files to the existing submission’s revision workflow unless the decision letter explicitly requests a new submission. Maintain the review-file anonymity specified in Submission Requirements.

Reproduce or accurately summarise each comment, explain the response, and identify the location of the change using section, page, or line references. Distinguish responses to different reviewers.

Authors may respectfully disagree with a recommendation. Explain the scholarly reasoning and provide supporting evidence rather than leaving the comment unanswered. Requests that conflict or are unclear should be referred to the handling editor for clarification.

The decision letter specifies the revision deadline. Request any extension before that date, explaining the work remaining and proposing a realistic completion date.

If a deadline passes, the journal may seek an update and provide notice before closing an inactive submission. Authors should not assume that silence constitutes withdrawal or permission for simultaneous consideration elsewhere.

All authors must approve substantive revisions. Changes to authorship require the separate Authorship and Contributorship procedure and must not be introduced solely by editing the revised file.

The handling editor checks the revision and response. Minor changes may be assessed editorially. Substantial methodological, analytical, or interpretive changes normally require further external assessment. Original reviewers may be invited again, or replacements selected under Reviewer Selection.

Reassessment considers whether concerns have been resolved and whether revisions introduce new issues. New requests should be relevant and justified. Further rounds may be necessary, but no fixed number guarantees acceptance.

The authorised editor issues the next decision under Decision Process. Post-acceptance proof corrections are part of production and do not replace approval for substantive new research changes.